BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 07.02.2024 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL A.S(MD) No.135 of 2010 T.S.Govindarajan ... Appellant/Plaintiff Vs.

1.Ramayee(Died)

2. T.Muthumanickam

3. T.Senthamarai (Respondents 2 and 3 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased /sole respondent vide court order dated 04.03.2022 made in CMP(MD) No.2406/2021 )

4.Alamelu

5.A.Thiyagarajan

6.A.Sivagami (Respondents 4 to 6 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased /sole respondent ... Respondents vide court order dated 27.07.2023 made in CMP(MD) No.7856/2023 )

Prayer : This Appeal Suit has been filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., to set aside the judgment and decree in O.S. No.72 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Tiruchirapalli dated 31.03.2009 For Appellant : Mr.S.Ramesh For R2 to R6 : Mr.J. Balameenakshi

JUDGMENT

This Appeal suit has been filed as against the decree and judgment passed in O.S. No.72 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Tiruchirapalli, Wherein the appellant herein has filed the suit as against the defendant for the relief of recovery of money towards the arrears of rent. The trial Court has partly decreed the suit as against the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court the plaintiff has preferred this appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties herein after will be referred to as per their status/ranking in the Tribunal.

3.The gist of the plaint are as follows: Originally the suit property belongs to the plaintiff and the suit property was rented out to defendant for a rent of Rs.1500/- per month. The defendant also paid the rent amount regularly. Thereafter the plaintiff filed an application before the Rent Controller, Trichy in RCOP No.53/1997 for fixation of fair rent and the same was allowed and rent was fixed at Rs.7,900/- per month. Thereafter the appeal was preferred in RCA No.7 of 2006 by the defendant herein and no stay was granted by the appellate authority. As per the order passed in RCOP 53 of 1997 the arrears of rent from 01.03.1997 to 31.07.2006 is Rs.9,92,700/- The defendant has paid a sum of Rs.1,21,500/-. Therefore the defendant has to pay remaining amount of Rs. 7,71,200/-

4. The gist of the written statement averments are as follows.

The suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is admitted that the plaintiff is owner of the property and the defendant is the tenant and filing of RCOP 53 of 1998 is also admitted. The rent controller has fixed the fair rent at Rs.7900/- and same was challenged through appeal in RCA No.7 of 2006 and the same is pending. Whileso, until the rent is fixed by the appellate authority the defendant need not pay the said amount. Therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. Based on the pleadings and hearing both sides the trial Court has framed the following issues a) thjp NfhhpAs;sgb jhth njhifia ngw chpikAs;sjh?

b) gpujpthjp jhth njhifia thlif ghf;fpahf nrYj;jf;

flikg;gl;Ls;shuh?

c) thjpfF; vd;d ghpfhuk; ngw chpikAs;sJ?

6. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff he examined P.W.1 and marked exhibits A.1 and A2. On the side of the defendant D.W.1 was examined and no documents was marked. After hearing both and evaluating the evidence adduced on both sides, the trial Court has partly decreed the suit by holding that the plaintiff is only entitled to recover the arrears of rent for three years Being aggrieved over the said decree and judgement the present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff on the following grounds:

a) the Court below failed to assign any reason for granting relief only for recovery of three years of fair rent alone while the claim is for 113 months b) the Court below though referred the citation

2005(3)LW page 63 Chandra Mohan Vs.K.Ram Mohan has miserably failed to apply the principles laid down in the said ruling c) the Court below failed to apply its mind while deciding the issues No. 1 and 2 d) the Court below failed to take into con